3 Things You Would Do to Make Music Industry Better

[K.]

What three changes would you make, or what three policies would you institute, to make the music industry better?

Non-snarky responses encouraged.

[♛ The Manticore ☯]

1. Get rid of iHeartMedia (formerly Clears Channel) [Or at least reduce their power/marketshare in the industry].
2. Anyone using Payola should be fined or worse punishment.
3. Amend The Telecommunications Act of 1996.

[Deleted]

1-Get rid of auto-tune.
2-Put more substancial songs on the radio, at the same time you can have your songs about having fun and partying, but also there needs to be a lot of variety when it comes to the radio, and balance when it comes to genres in terms of popularity and radio play.
3-Have people who care more about the music than the money, and are dedicated, and not make it too much about image.

[MiniMusic]

Honestly, no shade but I really think we need at least one NEW artist that brings entertainment and super stardom to a whole 'nother level, ex. Michael Jackson, Britney, Madonna, Janet, etc. I feel like GaGa was definitely fitting that bill but she really spiraled with her quality of music and video quickly. The industry just needs more creativity!!

[dbhmr]

Not going for possible, just ideal.

1. Remove the possibility of illegal downloading and cheap/free streaming. Get some money back in there.
2. Remove payola and radio politics; give good DJs some control and freedom.

Can't think of a third.

[Ezekiel 23:20–21]

1. Force radio to have a quota for each genre they play (especially for CHR/Top 40 formats) so they have to diversify up their playlists (kind of like CanCon in Canada).

[irice22]

1. Make fines for illegal downloading less severe and far more frequent (like a parking ticket)
2. Invest in ways to to make streaming more profitable to the artist and label
3. Get rid of user-generated content counting for Hot 100

[Deleted]

1. Ban Autotune/protools
2. More creative label marketing that shows labels can keep up with modern trends
3. Broaden radio playlists across all genres so we don't have to hear the same songs every two minutes

[Glove Slap]

Some of these suggestions aren't...smart? Or at least not fully thought out in their implications.

There's no point in banning protools. You need some way to keep track of the recording equipment and tracks. Anyone trying to champion a return to analog equipment for the whole industry isn't educated enough on the true benefits of digital recording. Auto tune hasn't been used in recordings much in years, if you mean Melodyne then if you remove that, they're going to use something else to fix faults. You're not going to get around that. Virtually the entire industry uses it in their recording and it's not going to change.

Likewise, giving radio a ceiling for how much to play from each genre is a bad move. Some sounds and trends are more lucrative during certain periods. It's imperative that at points such as these, revenue be maximized, or at least brought close to maximization given what other operations are currently in play. Especially if others are simultaneously asking for a way to make streaming more profitable for artists. How do you expect the industry to make decisions that generate less money, and pay out more at the same time? It makes no sense.

Also, you're not going to erase illegal downloads and cheap streaming, especially when the latter seems to have finally, after a decade of people tearing their hair out, shown that it is possible to cut into the former in some way. It's always going to be there in one way or another, as far as I'm concerned, once free music was presented as an option to the public, it was a done deal and there is no going back from that. You can't just consider options like making it wrong or illegal, because it already is and has been from the beginning. Hasn't stopped millions from doing so. Especially with the privacy and anonymity provided by the internet (which is another entire discussion that will have to be addressed over many years before things like illegal media transfer can begin to be dealt with). It would be ideal for streaming to give more money, but for that to happen, there has to be more money there to be paid out. You either have to find a way for that activity to generate more, or add to that payout fund from somewhere else, and then that account would have to be funded and etc. Trying to find a way to make streaming potentially more profitable is a good start. The beast is already here, you can try to ignore it, as some unwise people tried to, or try to deal and live with it, and maybe even make some money from it. Either way, it's not going away.

Things that make more sense, and are actually places where exploration could be fruitful are:

Amending the Telecommuncations Act of 1996, specifically some kind of regulation for media cross-ownership. I think this is going to be come a much bigger issue at some point in our lifetimes and as fields such as individual entertainment (people making their own creations/channels and finding audiences), the rise of streaming services in general, and a company like Netflix currently re-writing the rules to successful television all currently increasing in popularity and more people are looking to try to cash in on it. Like with everything else, once it reaches a certain point, legalities will be brought more into conversation and analyzed. You're never going to get rid of politics in the industry, but you can minimize the amount of impact that they have.

Another way is to make more funds for developing new acts. Since most artists are on 360 deals, putting some of the revenue their generate into new acts is a smart move to ultimately grow the label as a whole. Now, this pretty much only counts for larger labels who have multiple big acts on their roster. One of the main benefits from this is that with touring taking precedence again as the main generator of money for a lot of acts, especially ones without much radio success up to that point (no play, no publishing royalties from there), newer acts would benefit from guidance in how to do good shows and how to bring their vision to life. The days of snatching up a talent and then just throwing them in the studio for years should be phased out. If an act is signed extremely young, like say Lorde was, it's one thing. But if someone is already and adult (18+), you should start developing their showmanship asap. In particular, if you aren't on the publishing credits for your songs, touring is likely your best shot for generating initial revenue and showing value to the label.

I'm pretty sure I can think up of a third. There's quite a lot that can be done in the industry today, things that don't require you to own a time machine to make possible.

As for the Hot 100, aside from incorporating digital sales into all genre charts, they've done ok for the most part from when they made the chart an all genre-chart in the late 90s. For whatever point the industry was at, they did their best to keep track. When digital sales took off, off they started to incorporate them. When streaming took off, they put that into it as well. They're meant to show songs which are generating the most revenue, which they do. User-paid subscriptions and streaming are a mainstay today, so don't look for those to leave. They're a part of the modern industry, and are rightfully shown.

[irice22]

Oct 1, 2014 14:22:55 GMT -5 Glove Slap said:

It's always going to be there in one way or another, as far as I'm concerned, once free music was presented as an option to the public, it was a done deal and there is no going back from that. You can't just consider options like making it wrong or illegal, because it already is and has been from the beginning. Hasn't stopped millions from doing so.

Right, because the punishments are too severe and too infrequent. If they were more frequent and less severe people might think twice. IP Addresses are much easier to track then the industry leads us to believe. They think it's more effective to scare us with a few fines for large sums. It's just not working.

[Glove Slap]

Oct 1, 2014 15:10:15 GMT -5 irice22 said:

Oct 1, 2014 14:22:55 GMT -5 Glove Slap said:

It's always going to be there in one way or another, as far as I'm concerned, once free music was presented as an option to the public, it was a done deal and there is no going back from that. You can't just consider options like making it wrong or illegal, because it already is and has been from the beginning. Hasn't stopped millions from doing so.

Right, because the punishments are too severe and too infrequent. If they were more frequent and less severe people might think twice. IP Addresses are much easier to track then the industry leads us to believe. They think it's more effective to scare us with a few fines for large sums. It's just not working.

To do so, you would need to make some kind of automatic framework. The reason that it would need to be automatic, is that so little is realistically owed by a single individual downloading a few songs that even the costs to draft the legal papers wouldn't be covered. To make such a system that is both legal and automatic is going to take a lot of time to be prepared, tested and approved. The reason why such a thing would need Government approval is if large groups of people are announced or exposed, it will lead to a public downturn of opinion to the internet providers. With the level of privacy on the internet being decreasing being such a big issue over the last few years, it's going to be a long, long road to such a point.

I'm not saying that something like this is bad to think about, but realistically there's other, more immediate issues that need to be taken care of.

[Me. I Am l!nk!nfan815...]

Give every single song released to radio the exact amount of plays/spins its first week or so(come up with reasonable time frame) and let the public decide by the amount of AI it receives for that week(s) the future of that song/give it more spins etc. Let everyone have a fair level playing field.

[YourFaveIsAFlop]

First, the radio cabal needs to be broken apart. When 90% of the radio stations in the United States are own by 2 or 3 companies and forced to play the same playlists, it is nearly impossible for new talent to organically break out. There were dozens of artists in the 60s and 70s that found mainstream success because one DJ who loved their song helped it to take off. Today, that is nearly impossible.

Secondly, the pricing structure for albums needs to change. Digital albums should never cost the same as physicals. Digitals shouldn't cost more than $7.99, physicals shouldn't cost more than $11.99. The only exceptions I would see to this is if there are videos attached to the album (i.e. Beyonce) or its some sort of a box set/compilation. In the same vein, digital downloads should revert to $0.99 with sale singles/catalog titles at $0.69. The only way to cut into piracy is to reduce the price point to a place where people no longer have the incentive to spend time searching for the song they want from illegal venues. There is no way to stop piracy completely, but the industry could go a long way to reducing it by making legal transactions more affordable.

Thirdly, indie artists and small labels need to be given a fair shake in the new landscape of streaming content. The bigs can negotiate absurdly low payouts from streaming services because they know they'll make it up on volume. A band just starting out that's trying to get their music out there can hardly be expected to survive on streaming payouts of $0.007 per YouTube view.

[14887fan]

I'll always be in favor of paying for music, rather than ripping it from the internet, streaming it, etc. So,
1) Figure out a way to abolish streaming/downloading music for free. If it's through paid services (a la Spotify), then that's fine.
2) Get rid of autotune altogether. Fine tune your craft and talents through hard work; not through a box of wires and buttons that'll make you sound listenable on radio but won't help you out in any way, shape, or form when it comes time for you to sing live.
3) Kill off iHeartMedia/Clear Channel.

[K.]

I feel like illegal downloading is slightly less rampant now that free streaming is available and many of the major file sharing services have been taken down. The problem is, companies like Spotify have not proven they can be profitable on a free model. Eventually they may have to progress to a fee system like Netflix, at which point they and the music industry in general could become EXTREMELY profitable...unless people go back to illegal downloading.

First, I think many people would be ok paying a small monthly fee for unlimited streaming, assuming free and legal is no longer an option. Spotify will successfully hook many in purely for the convenience of maintaining their libraries and playlists.

For those that want free, period, the labels and/or government could temporarily step up enforcement to deter that activity. Laws could also be adjusted to force ISPs to cut off services to people accused of illegal downloading pending the outcome of litigation, which I think would dramatically deter theft.

[Devil Marlena Nylund]

My 3 suggestions:

-I definitely agree with the one about corporate radio. All radio stations shouldn't have the same playlists. Stations should be a direct result of their immediate listener-base, not the country's listener base. Of course, with that comes regional hits and I'm sure people here, and around the internet, will be none-too-pleased when a regional hit from the east or west coast suddenly makes it high on the charts due to airplay from just one part of the country. Though with the internet anyway, that'd fix itself soon enough.

-Educate people that music has value. I think the whole discussion about abolishing streaming and illegal downloads and all that stuff are fine but the problem isn't going to be fixed unless you go to the source. Give music a value and people will treat it as something worth something. To go hand-in-hand with that too, record labels and big-name producers should probably buy into that belief too. Many of them treat music as something disposable to make a profit off of and a lot of the times, it's easy to tell.

-Feminism. This one might be a bit of a stretch but it ties into the men vs. women singers thread (that I STILL haven't posted in and I've been meaning to since it was started...) but I don't think women have enough credibility in the music industry. Yeah, women are currently Top 5 on the Hot 100 for a full month and they've been dominating pop music for the last 10 or 15 years but I still get the distinct impression that hard-core and long-time music fans don't respect female artists as much as male artists, whether it be artists of today or musicians from the 60s, 70s and 80s. Think of any major female rock star and almost immediately, the thought of "sex appeal" is brought in by association. It might apply to many male rock stars too but for them it sits below "musicianship". Even someone like Adele, many people associate her with her looks, even if it's said in a complimentary way (like using 'confidence' or saying "she doesn't have to take off her clothes to sell records.")

[dbhmr]

K. just noticed your signature, and A+.

[dbhmr]

Oct 1, 2014 18:13:43 GMT -5 Devil Marlena Nylund said:

-Feminism. This one might be a bit of a stretch but it ties into the men vs. women singers thread (that I STILL haven't posted in and I've been meaning to since it was started...) but I don't think women have enough credibility in the music industry. Yeah, women are currently Top 5 on the Hot 100 for a full month and they've been dominating pop music for the last 10 or 15 years but I still get the distinct impression that hard-core and long-time music fans don't respect female artists as much as male artists, whether it be artists of today or musicians from the 60s, 70s and 80s. Think of any major female rock star and almost immediately, the thought of "sex appeal" is brought in by association. It might apply to many male rock stars too but for them it sits below "musicianship". Even someone like Adele, many people associate her with her looks, even if it's said in a complimentary way (like using 'confidence' or saying "she doesn't have to take off her clothes to sell records.")

Unfortunately this is a global, across-all-mediums disaster that is not the result of the music industry, but rather humanity...and religion.

[K.]

Oct 1, 2014 18:21:58 GMT -5 dbhmr said:

Oct 1, 2014 18:13:43 GMT -5 Devil Marlena Nylund said:

-Feminism. This one might be a bit of a stretch but it ties into the men vs. women singers thread (that I STILL haven't posted in and I've been meaning to since it was started...) but I don't think women have enough credibility in the music industry. Yeah, women are currently Top 5 on the Hot 100 for a full month and they've been dominating pop music for the last 10 or 15 years but I still get the distinct impression that hard-core and long-time music fans don't respect female artists as much as male artists, whether it be artists of today or musicians from the 60s, 70s and 80s. Think of any major female rock star and almost immediately, the thought of "sex appeal" is brought in by association. It might apply to many male rock stars too but for them it sits below "musicianship". Even someone like Adele, many people associate her with her looks, even if it's said in a complimentary way (like using 'confidence' or saying "she doesn't have to take off her clothes to sell records.")

Unfortunately this is a global, across-all-mediums disaster that is not the result of the music industry, but rather humanity...and religion.

Maybe this is dragging us off topic, but I'm curious -- religion?

[Green Baron]

1. Teach the public to enjoy heavier music.
2. MORE VARIETY
3. Less lengthy runs on Alt.

I'm fine with illegal downloads as it is right now, we don't need to improve or deimprove anything.

[Joe1240]

1.Release the Physical CD/Digital release the same day so there are no more leaks anymore. With albums coming out on Thursdays/Fridays in other countries. It leaks before the US Release date.Make a Global release day so fans get everything all at once.

2.Release the radio edits of the Pop singles on Itunes so fans don't have other ways to find them online.

3.Change the Youtube thing for the Billboard Hot 100,VEVO views mean nothing in the long term.Lots of flop songs have 100 Million views on Youtube[A.K.A Pitbull "Rain On Me".]. Someone can refresh the video a thousand times to get a song that isn't worthy to the top of the charts.

[Devil Marlena Nylund]

Oct 1, 2014 23:58:36 GMT -5 Joe1240 said:

3.Change the Youtube thing for the Billboard Hot 100,VEVO views mean nothing in the long term.

The Hot 100 doesn't measure the long-term. Only the week it covers.

And your #1 suggestion I think is already being taken care of. :)

[Envoirment]

1. Use on air/on sale releases in the UK. Even with streaming now being included on our charts, they still delay the selling of a song even if it's doing really well on streaming.

2. Decrease album prices, particularly digital albums.

3. Make radio play songs based on feedback, not payola etc.

[YourFaveIsAFlop]

Oct 1, 2014 23:58:36 GMT -5 Joe1240 said:

3.Change the Youtube thing for the Billboard Hot 100,VEVO views mean nothing in the long term.Lots of flop songs have 100 Million views on Youtube[A.K.A Pitbull "Rain On Me".]. Someone can refresh the video a thousand times to get a song that isn't worthy to the top of the charts.

The impact of people doing that is great exaggerated. A small group even watching the video on loop for days on end cannot realistically impact charts if the song doesn't have any broad appeal

[tekkenguy]

1. I don't like how a random station in Salt Lake City or Orlando would be willing to add someone like Ella Henderson or Hozier onto their playlists but Z100 or KIIS refuse to touch them until it starts to take off all over the country. Shows too much corporate power and kills off so many songs.
2. Radio needs to stop giving alternative/rock music the cold shoulder. "Do I Wanna Know" was a CHR smash hit waiting to happen.
3. The "second hit" problem. Sometimes radio can decide whether or not an artist becomes a one hit wonder. For example, CHR is giving "Into Your Arms" a chance, but wasn't so kind to, say, "Lose Yourself To Dance."

[Glove Slap]

Oct 2, 2014 8:40:52 GMT -5 YourFaveIsAFlop said:

Oct 1, 2014 23:58:36 GMT -5 Joe1240 said:

3.Change the Youtube thing for the Billboard Hot 100,VEVO views mean nothing in the long term.Lots of flop songs have 100 Million views on Youtube[A.K.A Pitbull "Rain On Me".]. Someone can refresh the video a thousand times to get a song that isn't worthy to the top of the charts.

The impact of people doing that is great exaggerated. A small group even watching the video on loop for days on end cannot realistically impact charts if the song doesn't have any broad appeal

This, and also Vevo views come from all over the world. If people in Guatamala want to watch Pitbull and Marc Anthony videos, it's not going to make an impact on the Hot 100 because the streams aren't coming from the US. You can have a song/video flop in one territory and be hit elsewhere.

[Kishi KCM]

1. Bring back music television!

2. Release music through more outlets/retailers.

3. More balanced playlists.

[halo19]

1. Adapt more quickly to trending public interests, applying to both radio/charts and changing medium.
2. More promotion of current music and this doesn't mean we have to overplay 10 songs all the time. Make recurrent rules obsolete.
3. Make all format playlists more well rounded; not just stereotypical and homogenized examples of them.

[sabre14]

So far some suggestions I agree with but I always had the idea (that of course would never happen), is for every artist who is signed to a major label (MCA, RCA, Mercury, Capitol, etc.) to get at least 4 or 5 singles before dropping them. I know it's a business and labels like to cut their losses and try something else with radio but I think it would be great to see artist get a legit shot instead of being dropped right away. Some artists only get 1 or 2 singles before being dropped.

I'm not overly familiar with pop labels but I know in Nashville this has been going on for 20 years or so. If you go back to the 70's and 80's, many artists would get many opportunities to catch on. Reba McEntire had 7 singles before getting her first top 20 single, with the first four not even cracking the top 80, yes I said 80. Wade Bowen got only 1 single on Arista/Sea Gayle before being let go in 2012. Again, not going to ever happen but I can dream.

[Deleted]

1) Make people pass a singing test or dancing test to enter the music/entertainment industry

2) Force radio to play music regardless of age, or body image and go back to being a vehicle that breaks in new artists based on merit.

3) Come up with a system that forces pop radio to start playing crossover songs regardless of skin color, to foster diversity. Seeing how itunes and pop radio go in hand, more people should be able to eat.